Was St. Paul a liar and deceiver?

[Rise]

Even if you ignore my counter reply and don't investigate the interpretations of Paul that preach nothing less than Mosaic adherence like that of James Scott Trimm, you're stuck with the position that Jewish Christians are for some reason held to a higher, stricter standard.

You also have those who do accept the Council's authority and 21:25's authenticity who say those 4 commands (3 in many manuscripts) are merely temporary introductions for freshly pagan converts.

Except, if any of that were true, Paul would not have so clearly, frequently, repeatedly, and vehemently denounced the idea that gentiles need to be circumcised.

It's impossible to claim that Paul was only talking about the fact that gentiles don't need to observe rabbinical legalism when Paul, in no uncertain terms, says that the gentiles can forsake the most basic and biggest part of the mosaic covenant - The sign of the covenant itself.

In fact, some of his most forceful language of all his writings is employed when he finds out that some jewish believers have come along and tried to tell gentile congregations that it's time for them to start observing the mosaic covenant more fully.

 

[Shermana]

Except, if any of that were true, Paul would not have so clearly, frequently, repeatedly, and vehemently denounced the idea that gentiles need to be circumcised.

Except that there's no actual required commandment to circumcise yourself, only your offspring at 8 days.

I love how few Paulinians know that.

It's impossible to claim that Paul was only talking about the fact that gentiles don't need to observe rabbinical legalism when Paul, in no uncertain terms, says that the gentiles can forsake the most basic and biggest part of the mosaic covenant - The sign of the covenant itself.

By all means, find the place where it says one must be cirumcised according to the Law, as opposed to doing so for their offspring, thanks.

In fact, some of his most forceful language of all his writings is employed when he finds out that some jewish believers have come along and tried to tell gentile congregations that it's time for them to start observing the mosaic covenant more fully

Yeah, he says he wants circumcisers to be castrated. However, he's apparently ONLY referring to circumcision.

I'm sure Jesus would approve of wishing castration on your enemies.

That sure says a lot about Paulinians doesn't it, maybe you all should follow his example and wish castration on us Judaizers, why not?

Nice try.

 

[Shermana]

Hi Shermana, I have had the pleasure to converse with James Scott Trimm, and I truly believe that he lacks Spiritual understanding. He doesn't understand Paul very well, the Gospel which is According to the Scriptures, or the doctrine of Grace, so invoking him as an expert really doesn't hold much water with me.

So does that mean I get to write off any orthodox commentator's opinion with similar language? After all, I feel they don't understand Paul or the Gospels or the Scriptures very well, or their own doctrine of grace even!. So I guess I can just write them all off too, thanks, that makes things MUCH easier. So with that said, I'll just say don't expect your own commentators to hold much water with me, cool?

Phew, that makes pesky things like actually discussing their arguments and points and concepts so much easier, we can just bypass it altogether and write them off, what a load off my shoulders!

I would like to repeat what I told you before. The Jewish Believers were bound or in strict adherence to the written LETTER of the Torah. They did this because they were Jews, and because of their faith in Messiah. When the ISSUE of whether or not the Gentiles ALSO had to be in strict compliance to what was written in the Torah, the Body of Messiah assembled, and made a decision (Acts 15).

I appreciate you insisting that the Council of Jerusalem was a real event, but hopefully you can at least admit that this issue is disputed and contested in scholarly circulars and is not as defacto, necessarily concluded as an indisputable event as you'd like to think. And I suppose I get to write off any attempt of yours to go against these major scholars and insist it was real as not holding much water. So let's try discussing this without using spurious, clearly interpolated passages in which the scholars are on my side.

As well, the answer of "Because they were Jews" does not by any means answer why Jews are held to the higher standard. Is your answer that James and the Jerusalem church were wrong and stubbornly refusing to give up their traditions? You'd think with all his time hanging out with his brother he would have gotten the memo that the Law wasn't necessary. Except Jesus taught quite the opposite, explicit in the Gospels themselves, you just have to twist the heck out of what he says out of its cultural context to get it to say differently, and ultimately deny what the figure of the Jewish Messiah was meant to be as well.

If you look at the testimony of Paul and Peter, they argue that the Gentiles were being converted, and the Holy Spirit was falling on them, even while they were not in strict compliance with the Torah (uncircumcised). The Torah required that even Gentiles were to FIRST be circumcised to eat the Passover (Exo 12:43-49), so how in the world could they be converted and receive the Spirit, unless they were FIRST circumcised? This sin of not being circumcised, was REMITTED, and not RETAINED as per Yeshua's instruction:

Being required to be circumcised for passover is not a commandment to be cirumcised altogether. So I fail to see your point, considering that the only commandment is to have it done for your offspring at 8 days. How does receiving the Spirit have anything to do with partaking of the Passover feast? Through some vague interpretation associating the Passover feast with Jesus or something? Got a link for that view?

Yeshua also stated they had to authority to BIND and LOOSEN:

And you think that means the ability to bind and loosen the laws? I don't think so. If so, get a link that backs your view.

Mat 16:19
(19) And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven

Mat 18:18
(18) Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Same thing, those verses simply do not mean what you think. If you disagree, get a source that backs your view.

The Gentiles were given a dispensation. They were not BOUND to the letter of the Torah as the Jewish Believers were. And this is the ONLY reasonable explanation for the RUMORS concerning Paul about how he was teaching the Jews who lived among the Gentiles.

The only thing that remotely says they were not bound to the Torah is disputed and declared as spurious by major scholars. So if you're going to insist its a defacto, indisputable part of the Bible, you're going to have a bad time.

Let me ask you Shermana, why was the Torah added? Why did G-d add the Covenant of the Torah to the Covenants He made to the fathers? I think that if you properly understand WHY the Torah was added, it will clear up the OP concerning whether or not Paul is a liar and deceiver. KB[

Oh, and you properly understand apparently, right?

Because he set Israel apart to be a Holy People who obeyed his commandments and to separate them from the gentiles, for "All generations" with "perpetual" statutes.

But by all means, tell me what the "proper understanding" is.

 

[Pegg]

Except that there's no actual required commandment to circumcise yourself, only your offspring at 8 days.

who circumcised Abraham?

 

[Shermana]

who circumcised Abraham?

What does that have to do with the Mosaic Law?

 

[Ken Brown]

Shermana Quote:
Being required to be circumcised for passover is not a commandment to be cirumcised altogether. So I fail to see your point, considering that the only commandment is to have it done for your offspring at 8 days. How does receiving the Spirit have anything to do with partaking of the Passover feast? Through some vague interpretation associating the Passover feast with Jesus or something? Got a link for that view?

Hi Shermana, the children of Israel failed to comply with the circumcising of children on the 8th day, so they had to all be circumcised as adults BEFORE they could eat of the Passover (Ex 12:48), to comply with the Law of Moses.

Jos 5:7-10
(7) And their children, whom he raised up in their stead, them Joshua circumcised: for they were uncircumcised, because they had not circumcised them by the way.
(8) And it came to pass, when they had done circumcising all the people, that they abode in their places in the camp, till they were whole.
(9) And the LORD said unto Joshua, This day have I rolled away the reproach of Egypt from off you. Wherefore the name of the place is called Gilgal unto this day.
(10) And the children of Israel encamped in Gilgal, and kept the passover on the fourteenth day of the month at even in the plains of Jericho.

The Law of Moses strictly prohibits eating of the passover UNLESS you are circumcised. KB

 

[Ken Brown]

Hi Shermana, please see my responses after each of your quotes:

Shermana Quote:
So with that said, I'll just say don't expect your own commentators to hold much water with me, cool?

Phew, that makes pesky things like actually discussing their arguments and points and concepts so much easier, we can just bypass it altogether and write them off, what a load off my shoulders!

It is really not going to bother me much about not being able to use commentators. I really haven't found very many that understand properly.

Shermana Quote:
I appreciate you insisting that the Council of Jerusalem was a real event...to go against these major scholars.

Here again, I do not think much about what YOUR major scholars have to say, but I would be tickled to see a "major scholar" saying that the Council of Jerusalem was not a real event or that it never actually took place.

Shermana Quote:
And you think that means the ability to bind and loosen the laws? I don't think so. If so, get a link that backs your view.

Same thing, those verses simply do not mean what you think. If you disagree, get a source that backs your view.

My link goes back to the horses mouth...Yeshua said that remitting sin and retaining sin, and binding and loosening, were powers He gave to His Body. His Body executed those POWERS with their decision at the Council of Jerusalem, plain and simple.

Shermana Quote concerning "why" the Torah was added:
Oh, and you properly understand apparently, right?

Because he set Israel apart to be a Holy People who obeyed his commandments and to separate them from the gentiles, for "All generations" with "perpetual" statutes.

But by all means, tell me what the "proper understanding" is.

So, you feel the Torah was "added" to set apart a Holy People who would then obey His commandments?

Why does Moses write this about the "Holy People" who are "set apart:"

Deu 31:27-29
(27) For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the LORD; and how much more after my death?
(28) Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears, and call heaven and earth to record against them.
(29) For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands.

It looks like Moses disagrees with your premise that the Torah was added to have a people that was holy and set apart, keeping the commands of G-d.

Now, almost all of the commentators will say one of two things as to why the Law was added. Here is what Gill has to say about adding the Law to the covenant made with Abraham:

It was added..."for the sake of restraining transgressions."

Henry states it a little differently:

"The Israelites, though they were chosen to be God's peculiar people, were sinners as well as others, and therefore the law was given to convince them of their sin, and of their obnoxiousness to the divine displeasure on the account of it."

I have had many tell me that the Law was added BECAUSE the children of Israel were sinning, and G-d needed to do something to curb or stop them from sinning. Is this something you would agree with Shermana? KB

 

[Shermana]

It is really not going to bother me much about not being able to use commentators. I really haven't found very many that understand properly.

Oh okay, so you get to decide who decides properly whether or not you can find anyone who agrees with you.

Here again, I do not think much about what YOUR major scholars have to say, but I would be tickled to see a "major scholar" saying that the Council of Jerusalem was not a real event or that it never actually took place.

Did I not list them on this thread already? I guess I get to say that I don't care much about what YOUR scholars say? Do you want a repeat of those names? What do you mean MY major scholars? What is the difference between "my scholars" and the ones you'd be "tickled to see".

^ "In spite of the presence of discrepancies between these two accounts, most scholars agree that they do in fact refer to the same event.", Paget, "Jewish Christianity", in Horbury, et al., "The Cambridge History of Judaism: The Early Roman Period", volume 3, p. 744 (2008). Cambridge University Press.
^ "Paul's account of the Jerusalem Council in Galatians 2 and the account of it recorded in Acts have been considered by some scholars as being in open contradiction.", Paget, "Jewish Christianity", in Horbury, et al., "The Cambridge History of Judaism: The Early Roman Period", volume 3, p. 744 (2008). Cambridge University Press.
^ "There is a very strong case against the historicity of Luke's account of the Apostolic Council", Esler, "Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology", p. 97 (1989). Cambridge University Press.
^ "The historicity of Luke's account in Acts 15 has been questioned on a number of grounds.", Paget, "Jewish Christianity", in Horbury, et al., "The Cambridge History of Judaism: The Early Roman Period", volume 3, p. 744 (2008). Cambridge University Press.
^ "However, numerous scholars have challenged the historicity of the Jerusalem Council as related by Acts, Paul's presence there in the manner that Luke describes, the issue of idol-food being thrust on Paul's Gentile mission, and the historical reliability of Acts in general.", Fotopolous, "Food Offered to Idols in Roman Corinth: a socio-rhetorical reconsideration", pp. 181-182 (2003). Mohr Siebeck.
^ "Sahlin rejects the historicity of Acts completely (Der Messias und das Gottesvolk [1945]). Haenchen’s view is that the Apostolic Council “is an imaginary construction answering to no historical reality” (The Acts of the Apostles [Engtr 1971], p. 463). Dibelius’ view (Studies in the Acts of the Apostles [Engtr 1956], pp. 93–101) is that Luke’s treatment is literary-theological and can make no claim to historical worth.", Mounce, "Apostolic Council", in Bromiley (ed.) "The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia", volume 1, p. 200 (rev. ed. 2001). Wm. B. Eerdmans.

My link goes back to the horses mouth...Yeshua said that remitting sin and retaining sin, and binding and loosening, were powers He gave to His Body. His Body executed those POWERS with their decision at the Council of Jerusalem, plain and simple.

Your link? I must have missed you posting a link that agreed with your view here. You are confusing your interpretation with "What Yeshua said". If you are going to just write off counter opinions as "not properly understanding", what's the use in even trying to debate your view? Binding and loosing has nothing to do with stating what laws one could follow.

By your logic, the Disciples could make murder and adultery legal if they wanted to. I think that's enough to show you that your view is a bit warped.

So, you feel the Torah was "added" to set apart a Holy People who would then obey His commandments?

That's what I said.

Why does Moses write this about the "Holy People" who are "set apart:"

Deu 31:27-29
(27) For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the LORD; and how much more after my death?
(28) Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears, and call heaven and earth to record against them.
(29) For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands.

Because he knows they will disobey the commandments. You are confusing "being a holy people" with "being a nation of robots who are magically led to never break it".

What do YOU think the Torah was given for exactly?

It looks like Moses disagrees with your premise that the Torah was added to have a people that was holy and set apart, keeping the commands of G-d.

Moses doesn't disagree with me at all. You're simply reading into something that's not there, which is the idea that obeying the Law would somehow make them never disobey the Law later, which makes no sense.

It looks like you completely misunderstand that passage, have a strange interpretation, that there's a reason no commentator would agree with your view and you completely don't get the context. Try this on: Moses is simply saying that they will break the commandments and bring the punishment upon themselves. The point of the Torah is to keep them Holy and in God's favor. They have the ability to break those commandments and lose it.

Now, almost all of the commentators will say one of two things as to why the Law was added. Here is what Gill has to say about adding the Law to the covenant made with Abraham:

It was added..."for the sake of restraining transgressions."

Right. Restraining transgressions. Apparently transgressions include not breaking Sabbath either. Now notice that only ONE small culture receives this Torah. Why would that be? Why not the Bablyonians too? Why not the Carthaganians? Why not the Chinese? Why not the American Indians? Did God not care whether they sin or not? Did God have different standards?

Henry states it a little differently:

"The Israelites, though they were chosen to be God's peculiar people, were sinners as well as others, and therefore the law was given to convince them of their sin, and of their obnoxiousness to the divine displeasure on the account of it."

Again, Sin includes breaking Sabbath and not wearing Fringes. Why would that be?

I have had many tell me that the Law was added BECAUSE the children of Israel were sinning, and G-d needed to do something to curb or stop them from sinning. Is this something you would agree with Shermana? KB

For some reason he only gave the Torah to the Jews, why not everyone else? Why not tell the Sumerians about sin?

 

[Shermana]

Hi Shermana, the children of Israel failed to comply with the circumcising of children on the 8th day, so they had to all be circumcised as adults BEFORE they could eat of the Passover (Ex 12:48), to comply with the Law of Moses.

Jos 5:7-10
(7) And their children, whom he raised up in their stead, them Joshua circumcised: for they were uncircumcised, because they had not circumcised them by the way.
(8) And it came to pass, when they had done circumcising all the people, that they abode in their places in the camp, till they were whole.
(9) And the LORD said unto Joshua, This day have I rolled away the reproach of Egypt from off you. Wherefore the name of the place is called Gilgal unto this day.
(10) And the children of Israel encamped in Gilgal, and kept the passover on the fourteenth day of the month at even in the plains of Jericho.

The Law of Moses strictly prohibits eating of the passover UNLESS you are circumcised. KB

That has absolutely nothing to do with the idea that they are commanded to be circumcised. They simply aren't allowed to eat the passover feast if they're not. You are only commanded to eat the passover feast IF you are circumcised. If you're not, you're exempt. Simple.

Therefore, the idea that circumcision is mandatory except for your offspring at 8 days goes out the window. Along with the point about Paul.

 

[Pegg]

What does that have to do with the Mosaic Law?

you made the claim so you need to back up that what you are saying is true

But you can't back it up because obviously Abraham became circumcised as a much older man and not an 8 day old baby (ouch!)

He wasnt circumcised by his parents.....so who did it for him?

 

[Shermana]

you made the claim so you need to back up that what you are saying is true

Okay, tell me what you want me to back up.

But you can't back it up because obviously Abraham became circumcised as a much older man and not an 8 day old baby (ouch!)

Which has nothing to do with the Mosaic Law.

He wasnt circumcised by his parents.....so who did it for him?

Maybe a servant. Which has nothing to do with the Mosaic Law.

Interesting however, that Moses was almost killed because he refused to circumcise his son. I think that should end that argument.

 

[Rise]

So, since we've established already from Acts 21 that the Jerusalem elders were pleased with what Paul was doing, and found no truth to the rumor that he was telling Jews to forsake the law, it seems now that you are trying to say Paul never actually taught the gentiles they were exempt from the law, but that they were only exempt from circumcision by some kind of legal technicality.
Does this view hold up to scripture? No, it doesn't - Not in the least.




The bible doesn't say you are only to circumcise infants, but it says anyone not circumcised is cut off from his people. Even foreigner slaves must be circumcized. Abraham had to circumcise everyone under him, regardless of age, there was no exemption.

Genesis 17
Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."
Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

That very day Abraham and his son Ishmael were circumcised. 27 And all the men of his house, those born in the house and those bought with money from a foreigner, were circumcised with him.

Joshua had to circumcize all the males, including the adults, before they could enter the promised land.

Joshua 5
2 At that time the Lord said to Joshua, "Make flint knives and circumcise the sons of Israel a second time." 3 So Joshua made flint knives and circumcised the sons of Israel at Gibeath-haaraloth. 4 And this is the reason why Joshua circumcised them: all the males of the people who came out of Egypt, all the men of war, had died in the wilderness on the way after they had come out of Egypt. 5 Though all the people who came out had been circumcised, yet all the people who were born on the way in the wilderness after they had come out of Egypt had not been circumcised. 6 For the people of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, until all the nation, the men of war who came out of Egypt, perished, because they did not obey the voice of the Lord; the Lord swore to them that he would not let them see the land that the Lord had sworn to their fathers to give to us, a land flowing with milk and honey. 7 So it was their children, whom he raised up in their place, that Joshua circumcised. For they were uncircumcised, because they had not been circumcised on the way.
8 When the circumcising of the whole nation was finished, they remained in their places in the camp until they were healed.

Strangers who wish to be a part of the passover must first circumcise themselves. They aren't exempt because they missed the window at birth. This, as part of the Mosaic law, would alone imply that one must be circumcised in order to keep the law, otherwise they cannot observe the commanded passover. An exemption from circumcision itself is a recognition that there is at least no expectation of them keeping the whole law.

Jesus told us to keep passover in remembrance of Him too, which raises issues if one tries to do that without being circumcised if we are still under the mosaic law (Actually, the need to be physically circumcised before participating is a reference to the fact that we must be circumcised of heart to commune with God, as Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 11 about the dangers involved in consuming the bread and drink of the Lord in an "unworthy manner" without confessing their sins to God).

Exodus 12:48
If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it.

If circumcision wasn't an issue if one missed their chance at birth, then Paul would not have circumcised Timothy on account of the "Jews in those places"

Acts 16
3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

Here we have it plainly stated that the pharisees of that time believed that is was necessary for adult converts to be circumcised in order to keep the law of Moses. Peter points out that this is unnecessary because, effectively, they are already circumcised in their hearts. And we find a repeat here of what is in acts 21, about what they told the gentiles they must do.

Acts 15
But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." 2 And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. 3 So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. 5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses."
6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7 And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. 10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."
...
19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. 21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues."

Are you going to try to say that Acts 15 is an interpolation too? I haven't seen any evidence of that for Acts 21 yet (referencing someone who thinks so is not evidence, I want to know on what basis they try to make such a claim), and I doubt there would be any legitimate reason to suspect that of Acts 15 either.

As if that weren't enough for you, it's referenced a second time in Acts 15:
28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”

 

[Rise]

Now, as for what Paul was teaching. We just saw how the Jerusalem elders were pleased with what Paul was doing among the gentiles, and gave judgement (referenced multiple times in multiple chapters) that they should not be troubled with keeping the law.

Was Paul teaching anything that could be construed as consistent with the idea that gentiles still needed to circumcise their children?
　

Let's see:

1 Corinthians 7
For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God.

Romans 3
Since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.

Romans 4
Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well,

Romans 2
For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.
　

Galatians 2
Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. 3 But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek.
12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. 13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?"
　
1 Corinthians 7
Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision.

Galatians 5
For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

6 Galatians
12 It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh who would force you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. 13 For even those who are circumcised do not themselves keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh.
　
　
(Jeremiah here for reference with the applicable Pauline quotes)

Jeremiah 4
Circumcise yourselves to the Lord; remove the foreskin of your hearts, O men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem; lest my wrath go forth like fire, and burn with none to quench it, because of the evil of your deeds."

Jeremiah 9
"Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will punish all those who are circumcised merely in the flesh— Egypt, Judah, Edom, the sons of Ammon, Moab, and all who dwell in the desert who cut the corners of their hair, for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in heart."

Colossians 2
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,

Phillipians 3
2 Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh. 3 For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh—
...
For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith—
　
　
　
　
Paul tells us the following:
　
-He says that we have the circumcision of Christ, the circumcised heart.
-He says that the truly circumcised are those who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus, without regards for fleshly circumcision.
-He makes it clear that physical circumcision means absolutely nothing with regards to salvation.
-He says that physical circumcision has nothing to do with being declared righteous.

-He says that Peter lived like a gentile, and that gentiles should not be expected to live like Jews.
-He assures us that it was not necessary for Titus to be circumcised in the presence of the elders at Jerusalem, in contrast with Timothy whom Paul circumcised for the sake of non-christian Jews.

-He equates physically circumcising yourself with keeping the law of Moses.
-He says that we are not obligated to keep the mosaic law.
-He equates circumcision with putting a yoke of slavery on, in contrast with the freedom of Christ
-He says that those who were circumcised did not keep the rest of the law anyway.
　
　
Paul did not say anything that is consistent with the idea that gentiles should continue circumcising their infants.
Nor is there anything from scripture or from the culture at the time of Christ that would suggest it was acceptable for someone under the mosaic covenant to remain uncircumcised.
　
And that's not even getting into the entirety of Paul's comments on law, which would make it clear he cannot be teaching the necessity of circumcision for gentile infants because he teaches that keeping the mosaic law is itself no longer necessary for those who are led by the Spirit (Galatians 5 as a clear example)

Because he set Israel apart to be a Holy People who obeyed his commandments and to separate them from the gentiles, for "All generations" with "perpetual" statutes

God does want a people Holy, set apart - People with circumcised hearts.
Christ said that the world would know His followers by their love for each other.

John 13
34 "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

So, how are you known to the world around you? By your love for others, or by your fleshly observances?

 

[Shermana]

So, since we've established already from Acts 21 that the Jerusalem elders were pleased with what Paul was doing, and found no truth to the rumor that he was telling Jews to forsake the law, it seems now that you are trying to say Paul never actually taught the gentiles they were exempt from the law, but that they were only exempt from circumcision by some kind of legal technicality.

There's more to it than that including some of the things Paul taught regarding Grace. Whether Paul taught to abandon the Law altogether is still up for debate, I'm not sure where I stand, but with the suspected interpolations in Acts (including in chapter 15 which as I note, you may have missed my postings of the scholars who agree it was interpolated), it may not be so cut and dry, and we do see obvious interpolations like in 1 Cor 9:20 where numerous manuscripts lack the paranthesized ("Though I myself am not under the Law"). But we also have the issue of the Ebionites' rejection of Paul and the Clementine Literature.

Does this view hold up to scripture? No, it doesn't - Not in the least.

Sure it does. Let me show you:

The bible doesn't say you are only to circumcise infants, but it says anyone not circumcised is cut off from his people. Even foreigner slaves must be circumcized. Abraham had to circumcise everyone under him, regardless of age, there was no exemption.

Cut off from ABRAHAM's People, that would be pre-Mosaic Law. As in his household and his servants. Unlike the Mosaic Law which is "For all generations" and "perpetual".

Joshua had to circumcize all the males, including the adults, before they could enter the promised land.

Yes and that can be argued to be a one time commandment. It can also be argued it was optional and done voluntarily, not screaming against their will at threat of expulsion. We see that right afterwards:

10On the evening of the fourteenth day of the month, while camped at Gilgal on the plains of Jericho, the Israelites celebrated the Passover.

It just happened to be passover time! If you wanted to engage in the rites, you had to be circumcised. Pretty simple. I can imagine most everyone would agree to it at that time who wanted to engage in this.

Strangers who wish to be a part of the passover must first circumcise themselves. They aren't exempt because they missed the window at birth. This, as part of the Mosaic law, would alone imply that one must be circumcised in order to keep the law, otherwise they cannot observe the commanded passover. An exemption from circumcision itself is a recognition that there is at least no expectation of them keeping the whole law.

And eating the passover is not mandatory necessarily, only if you're circumcised.

Jesus told us to keep passover in remembrance of Him too, which raises issues if one tries to do that without being circumcised if we are still under the mosaic law (Actually, the need to be physically circumcised before participating is a reference to the fact that we must be circumcised of heart to commune with God, as Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 11 about the dangers involved in consuming the bread and drink of the Lord in an "unworthy manner" without confessing their sins to God).

I don't remember Jesus saying the passover itself was to recognize him, but merely the breaking of bread which is in fact identified in the Didache and other writings (including possibly Paul's) as the breaking of bread. The problem here is you're assuming a controversial interpretation of "Passover" is defacto passover when it's not clear cut as you think.

Last Supper, Not A Seder - The Seven Lost Pilgrim Feasts

The Jews started their Sabbath at sundown when the Passover Seder was eaten. Yet Yahushua had already dined at the last supper with His disciples the previous evening. The last supper was a memorial meal not a Passover Seder.

So there goes that.

If circumcision wasn't an issue if one missed their chance at birth, then Paul would not have circumcised Timothy on account of the "Jews in those places"

Apparently Paul did it out of fear of the circumcising faction who was a bit too zealous in making non-Jews follow this non-scriptural concept of FORCING them to be circumcised. Since as we can see, despite episodes like Joshua's circumcising of the males which may or may not have been mandatory and could have very well been all voluntary for those who wanted to obey Passover, it simply was only required to obey Passover, which as we see, was NOT the Last Supper whatsoever.

Here we have it plainly stated that the pharisees of that time believed that is was necessary for adult converts to be circumcised in order to keep the law of Moses. Peter points out that this is unnecessary because, effectively, they are already circumcised in their hearts. And we find a repeat here of what is in acts 21, about what they told the gentiles they must do.

And as we plainly see, the Pharisees had some warped and incorrect interpretations of Torah according to Jesus, like the idea that circumcision was absolutely mandatory according to the Law for all adults and not just offspring.

Where does Peter point out that it's unnecessary? What verse are you referring to?

Are you going to try to say that Acts 15 is an interpolation too? I haven't seen any evidence of that for Acts 21 yet (referencing someone who thinks so is not evidence, I want to know on what basis they try to make such a claim), and I doubt there would be any legitimate reason to suspect that of Acts 15 either.

Why yes, in fact I believe I've posted the scholars who say several times on this thread by now. I have a whole thread on the issue of Acts 21 and 15 if you'd like to post there.

For one thing, Acts 15 clearly clashes with Galatians 2. Even FF Bruce (hardline Christian conservative scholar) tries to downplay this by saying Gal 2 is referring to a separate and later event, which most scholars don't seem to buy.

In case you missed it:

^ "Paul's account of the Jerusalem Council in Galatians 2 and the account of it recorded in Acts have been considered by some scholars as being in open contradiction.", Paget, "Jewish Christianity", in Horbury, et al., "The Cambridge History of Judaism: The Early Roman Period", volume 3, p. 744 (2008). Cambridge University Press.
^ "There is a very strong case against the historicity of Luke's account of the Apostolic Council", Esler, "Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology", p. 97 (1989). Cambridge University Press.
^ "The historicity of Luke's account in Acts 15 has been questioned on a number of grounds.", Paget, "Jewish Christianity", in Horbury, et al., "The Cambridge History of Judaism: The Early Roman Period", volume 3, p. 744 (2008). Cambridge University Press.
^ "However, numerous scholars have challenged the historicity of the Jerusalem Council as related by Acts, Paul's presence there in the manner that Luke describes, the issue of idol-food being thrust on Paul's Gentile mission, and the historical reliability of Acts in general.", Fotopolous, "Food Offered to Idols in Roman Corinth: a socio-rhetorical reconsideration", pp. 181-182 (2003). Mohr Siebeck.
^ "Sahlin rejects the historicity of Acts completely (Der Messias und das Gottesvolk [1945]). Haenchen’s view is that the Apostolic Council “is an imaginary construction answering to no historical reality” (The Acts of the Apostles [Engtr 1971], p. 463). Dibelius’ view (Studies in the Acts of the Apostles [Engtr 1956], pp. 93–101) is that Luke’s treatment is literary-theological and can make no claim to historical worth.", Mounce, "Apostolic Council", in Bromiley (ed.) "The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia", volume 1, p. 200 (rev. ed. 2001). Wm. B. Eerdmans.

As if that weren't enough for you, it's referenced a second time in Acts 15:
28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.

So yeah, Acts 15 AS WELL as 21:25 are in severe scholarly doubt, so we don't have to examine those as defacto, undisputed scripture necessarily. As the Tubingen school rightly noted, the Council of Jerusalem and its subsequent reference in Acts 21:25 most likely added by anti-Judaizers later on. Plus, 21:25 kinda breaks the flow from 24-26.

Interesting how the manuscripts can't seem to agree if it was 3 rulings or 4 btw.

 

[Shermana]

Also to add, the question was not exactly resolved even back in the day for full proselytes:

The issue between the Zealot and Liberal parties regarding the circumcision of proselytes remained an open one in tannaitic times; R. Joshua asserting that the bath, or baptismal rite, rendered a person a full proselyte without circumcision, as Israel, when receiving the Law, required no initiation other than the purificative bath; while R. Eliezer makes circumcision a condition for the admission ofa proselyte, and declares the baptismal rite to be of no consequence (Yeb. 46a).

CIRCUMCISION - JewishEncyclopedia.com

While the hardline view prevailed, it was apparently not so cut and dry of an issue of whether those who were converting to take the FULL law on had to be circumcised. This further emphasizes the idea that the procedure's exact lawfulness as far as being mandatory upon those not born to a Jewish parent has been in doubt and argued. So what's very possible, if not most likely, is that the circumcision party was just similar to those like of Shammai's and Eliezer's viewpoint.

To summarize: If it was as clear cut, there wouldn't be arguing about it for those who otherwise took the rest of the Law upon themselves. (Minus passover celebration, which is not the Eucharist/last supper).